separate openshift_template_instance_status_condition_total and openshift_template_instance_total metrics #16588
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A couple of comments basically just soliciting @smarterclayton's confirmation that this is really what we want to do, but if so then it lgtm.
pkg/template/controller/metrics.go
Outdated
| Name: "openshift_template_instance_total", | ||
| Help: "Counts TemplateInstance objects by condition type and status", | ||
| Name: "openshift_template_instance_info", | ||
| Help: "Information about templateinstance.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i know this is copied from KSM but i just want to call @smarterclayton's attention to it because it seems like an unhelpful name+description for a metric that is really "total number of template instances".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lack of sleep may be impairing my judgment, but I'll say it:, KSM is just wrong IMO in this regard; it should end in _total
pkg/template/controller/metrics.go
Outdated
| templateInstancesTotal.WithLabelValues(string(cond.Type), string(cond.Status)).Inc() | ||
| templateInstanceStatusCondition.WithLabelValues(templateInstance.Namespace, templateInstance.Name, string(cond.Type), "true").Set(boolFloat64(cond.Status == kapi.ConditionTrue)) | ||
| templateInstanceStatusCondition.WithLabelValues(templateInstance.Namespace, templateInstance.Name, string(cond.Type), "false").Set(boolFloat64(cond.Status == kapi.ConditionFalse)) | ||
| templateInstanceStatusCondition.WithLabelValues(templateInstance.Namespace, templateInstance.Name, string(cond.Type), "unknown").Set(boolFloat64(cond.Status == kapi.ConditionUnknown)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
again i understand (after talking to @jim-minter) that this follows KSM, but it seems weird to guarantee we are going to report a datapoint for every combination of condition values, for each template instance. Reporting "0" doesn't seem terribly interesting for a condition=foo if we're also reporting "1" for condition=bar.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(and on that same note it seems heavy handed to report N datapoints for every template instance, rather than just a few datapoints that roll up the totals for each condition). Again, understand this follows the KSM pattern, but want to call @smarterclayton's attention to it.
…hift_template_instance_total metrics
jim-minter
force-pushed
the
trello138-tsb-prometheus-3
branch
from
1b00e63
to
0fb610f
Compare
openshift-ci-robot
added
size/S
jim-minter
changed the title
|
@bparees @smarterclayton updated... |
|
@smarterclayton so the reason we (or at least I?) prefer this implementation is that creating a metric per condition would mean having to change metric code if we add new conditions. Whereas this implementation is dynamic w/ respect to the set of valid conditions. So given the choice of 2 metrics (one for total, one that includes the condition+conditional_value labels) or N metrics (one metric per condition, each metric having a condition_value label), I prefer 2 metrics. |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
@bparees bump |
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bparees, jim-minter The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
approved
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue. |
follow-up from #16455
@smarterclayton @bparees ptal
@gabemontero fyi